When America first become industrialized, companies were trying their best to get the most out of each employee. They would work an employee endless hours, without respect to safety. Wages were minimal, and they cared very little for an employees dedication or allegiance. Companies just wanted work done so more could be done. In a way, I understand that. After all, this was all new to everyone. Electricity, natural gas. well drilling, steel plants automobile making...it was all new, and it was all great because we were coming out of a depression and were all ready to let er rip. Soon unions were started to curb some of these abuses.
Today, though, committees are more functional, and useful, than unions ever were. CEO's are more concerned with employee productivity and want employees to look at their job as an investment in the company; a place where what each employee does, does affect the bottom line, and employees are a lot more educated and dedicated than "in the day".
Here's the problem; unions did garner some strength and power over employees and employers. Today, because of yesterday, jobs have been created, and employee numbers have been inflated trying to compensate for the evils of the past CEO's. Teachers, Cops, Firemen, all government employees have their jobs, thanks to attempts at trying to right the wrongs of the past. However, the past no longer exists but we are stuck with the thinking and the employment numbers of that kind of thinking.
I used to be not only a union worker, but a union representative in the steel industry. I was good at what I did, but in time I realized I was only saving jobs for the least competent and the best workers were not being compensated for their extra efforts. Everyone got a wage determined by the union, and no one could excel on their own merits. That is where the problem exists today. Unions cater to the least productive on their roles; it its the way the system was set up, and it hasn't changed, although all the other factors have changed. Add to that, unionized government employees and agreements made with a previous administration and no matter what, we are stuck with that number of people and all their benefits which are paid for with taxes.
Private business operates differently. Private business already wants employees to contribute more to their own benefits, especially retirement, and when demand for the product they produce is reduced, adjustments are made to the company's inventory, and employee roles are reduced, accordingly. Medical benefits and retirement benefits are put on hold, until the employees are recalled or find other work,
When taxpayers lose their jobs, operating funds dwindle, but according to union contracts, no government employee can lose their job, so taxpayers continue to pay for ALL the wages, benefits and retirement of each union member. No one considers the fact that the taxpayer has lost his job, his benefits, and he still has to pay for the government employee who very often makes more than the taxpayer does. It is simple math, no money ... no job,but the government (and I mean city, county, state and federal) just will not do with less. Doesn't it make sense that less of the government is needed if less of the people are using governmental facilities? Why is it the government does not scale back? And even the unemployed has to continue to pay taxes for all sorts of things, mostly because of the costs to governmental agencies, which is over staffed with employees taking money from taxpayers arranged from previous administrations. Do you see the stupidity of it all?
Most unions have unfunded liabilities such as retirement, retired medical, vacations. Those things are paid for through taxes. When a governmental employee retires, all his retirement benefits are paid for by taxpayers and a new employee is hired who starts to get the same benefits, so for every one employee, at least two are being paid, and all this is through taxes. Again, when the taxpayers loses his or her job, all state, and federal taxes are still required., even though the taxpayer might very well lose his benefits, maybe even his home.
What is going on in Wisconsin is the tip of the iceberg. Governmental unions have a strangle hold on taxpayers and it has to come to an end. Any and every government employee should contribute into his or her benefit package including retirement, and retirement medical, even legislators who have legislated themselves a fat retirement package at the expense of the taxpayer. Governments should not only be allowed to cut, but should cut and reduce employee roles every chance it gets. Entitlements are no longer in vogue, not even a job, and legislators should be ashamed that they think they are entitled to 50% of their salary for only 10 years worth of work, plus all those perks they've gotten while working. Someone please do a study on what it costs taxpayers in retirement benefits to all those blasted political representatives who have stuck it to us, and then look into what it costs to retire all those employees as well. Where will all costs come from? How can it be sustained?
Today, though, committees are more functional, and useful, than unions ever were. CEO's are more concerned with employee productivity and want employees to look at their job as an investment in the company; a place where what each employee does, does affect the bottom line, and employees are a lot more educated and dedicated than "in the day".
Here's the problem; unions did garner some strength and power over employees and employers. Today, because of yesterday, jobs have been created, and employee numbers have been inflated trying to compensate for the evils of the past CEO's. Teachers, Cops, Firemen, all government employees have their jobs, thanks to attempts at trying to right the wrongs of the past. However, the past no longer exists but we are stuck with the thinking and the employment numbers of that kind of thinking.
I used to be not only a union worker, but a union representative in the steel industry. I was good at what I did, but in time I realized I was only saving jobs for the least competent and the best workers were not being compensated for their extra efforts. Everyone got a wage determined by the union, and no one could excel on their own merits. That is where the problem exists today. Unions cater to the least productive on their roles; it its the way the system was set up, and it hasn't changed, although all the other factors have changed. Add to that, unionized government employees and agreements made with a previous administration and no matter what, we are stuck with that number of people and all their benefits which are paid for with taxes.
Private business operates differently. Private business already wants employees to contribute more to their own benefits, especially retirement, and when demand for the product they produce is reduced, adjustments are made to the company's inventory, and employee roles are reduced, accordingly. Medical benefits and retirement benefits are put on hold, until the employees are recalled or find other work,
When taxpayers lose their jobs, operating funds dwindle, but according to union contracts, no government employee can lose their job, so taxpayers continue to pay for ALL the wages, benefits and retirement of each union member. No one considers the fact that the taxpayer has lost his job, his benefits, and he still has to pay for the government employee who very often makes more than the taxpayer does. It is simple math, no money ... no job,but the government (and I mean city, county, state and federal) just will not do with less. Doesn't it make sense that less of the government is needed if less of the people are using governmental facilities? Why is it the government does not scale back? And even the unemployed has to continue to pay taxes for all sorts of things, mostly because of the costs to governmental agencies, which is over staffed with employees taking money from taxpayers arranged from previous administrations. Do you see the stupidity of it all?
Most unions have unfunded liabilities such as retirement, retired medical, vacations. Those things are paid for through taxes. When a governmental employee retires, all his retirement benefits are paid for by taxpayers and a new employee is hired who starts to get the same benefits, so for every one employee, at least two are being paid, and all this is through taxes. Again, when the taxpayers loses his or her job, all state, and federal taxes are still required., even though the taxpayer might very well lose his benefits, maybe even his home.
What is going on in Wisconsin is the tip of the iceberg. Governmental unions have a strangle hold on taxpayers and it has to come to an end. Any and every government employee should contribute into his or her benefit package including retirement, and retirement medical, even legislators who have legislated themselves a fat retirement package at the expense of the taxpayer. Governments should not only be allowed to cut, but should cut and reduce employee roles every chance it gets. Entitlements are no longer in vogue, not even a job, and legislators should be ashamed that they think they are entitled to 50% of their salary for only 10 years worth of work, plus all those perks they've gotten while working. Someone please do a study on what it costs taxpayers in retirement benefits to all those blasted political representatives who have stuck it to us, and then look into what it costs to retire all those employees as well. Where will all costs come from? How can it be sustained?
No comments:
Post a Comment